JUDICIAL REVIEW OF

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

Course Title: Law & Society

PRESENTED TO:
MR. AHMAD WARRAICH
 Presented By:

1.Umair Shoaib 9.Dr Abdul Rauf

2.Ayesha Zia 10. Bilal Zafar
3.Ahmed Ammar 11. Farhan Ahmed
4.Ateeba Malik 12. Asad Ali
5.Sehr Asif 13. Anam Arif
6.Rashid Iqbal 14. Umair Ali Shaikh
7.Sabeen Ayub 15. Azra Yasmeen
8.Faiza Khalid 16. Ali Ahmed
 TABLE OF CONTENT

1. Introduction to Judicial Review of Administrative Action

2. Practice and concept of judicial review of Admin. Action
3. The Jurisdictional Principle or Doctrine of Ultra Vires
4. Review of Findings of Law and Findings of Fact
5. Principle Of Natural justice
6. Remedies
7. Contribution of Judicial Review to the development of
Administration Law + Conclusion
T he power of the judiciary to control administrative and even legislative

actions derive their force from the law and the Constitution. Under Article 175 of the

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, there is Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and

such other courts, as may be established by law. Now the rule of law in Pakistan is well

established. The obligations of the Courts in Pakistan are, therefore, exclusively and

directly to the law and the Constitution, and by large they have always conducted

themselves accordingly. During the Martial Law also the ordinary courts have been

providing relief to the common citizens generally with the aid of qualified counsel on both

sides.

2. The courts at all levels are required, through proceedings in proper form, to

scrutinize the exercise of public power. They enjoy full protection under the Judicial

Officers (Protections) Act, 1950, for their actions in their judicial capacity. There is also in

Pakistan a jurisdiction provided to the High Courts under Article 199 of the Constitution

which is akin to that of the British High Court of Justice in the prerogative jurisdiction.

Article 199 is intended to replace the writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus,

prohibition and quo warrants which are in use in England. In Part-II of our Constitution

those writs have been enshrined in Articles 8 to 28. The citizens of Pakistan appear to

be making, within their means, the maximum possible use of the facility scrutiny by the

Courts of the exercise of public power is called the judicial review of administrative

actions.

3. The Supreme Court is vested with power to scrutinize, at the appellate stage, all
matters of complaint regarding the use or irregular use of public power by any authority

of state how high so ever. Alongside this is the power given to the High Courts to

pronounce upon the constitutionality and validity of all laws, and the guarantee that the

executive authorities will act in aid of the courts by giving effect to its orders.

4. It would thus be seen that in the broad context of the administrative process, the

role of judicial institutions appears to be sporadic and peripheral. The law, in its

unending task of reconciling the interests of government and governed, demarcates sets

of relationships and areas of activities in which claim and controversies may be resolved

and grievances redressed through the medium of the Courts. The issues thus committed

to the jurisdiction of the Courts are likely to be excluded, many that are thought to be of

paramount importance for the conduct of the government, to the individual citizen who

seeks to vindicate his own legal claims against the Administration.

5. Let us now take stock of the situation by considering briefly the definitions of

‘Judicial” adopted in particular legal contexts.

6. First in importance is the meaning of “Judicial” for the purposes of availability of

order of certiorari and prohibition and the duty to observe the rules of natural justice.

Breach of the rules of natural justice is a ground for awarding an order of certiorari and

prohibition. It may issue to the statutory bodies on other grounds e.g. excess of

jurisdiction allegations of breach of the rules of natural justice may be raised in other

forms of proceedings. The courts might have chosen to adopt different definitions of
“Judicial” for each of these three purposes” one for determining when certiorari and

prohibition may issue on grounds other than violation of natural justice and; yet another

for determining when a body is under a duty to comply with natural justice in cases

where its conduct is impugned otherwise than certiorari or prohibition. The Courts have

not in fact been drawn into making such elaborate refinements, and they have generally

made the tacit assumption that “Judicial” is to be defined uniformly for each of these

purposes.

7. The conception of “Judicial” may be either narrow or broader in its effect. A

public authority may exceed its powers by adopting an improper procedure as well as by

going wrong on a matter of substance. Substantive ultra vires may relate to matters of

law and fact or to matters of discretion. Discretionary powers must be exercised for the

purposes for which they were granted; relevant considerations must be taken into

account and irrelevant consideration disregarded. They must be exercised in good faith

and not arbitrarily or capriciously. If the repository of the power fails to comply with these

requirements, it acts ultra vires. These assumptions have conditioned the scope of

judicial review of questions of law and fact, on the one hand, and question of discretion,

on the other, and it is, therefore, convenient to treat review of discretionary powers.

8. In considering the scope of judicial review, a further broad distinction must be

drawn: ministerial, legislative and executive or administrative powers, on the one hand

and judicial powers, on the other. The validity of exercise of ministerial administrative,

and legislative powers affecting the legal interest of individuals is always open to

challenge in the courts, unless judicial review has been excluded, directly or indirectly,
by the relevant statute. The executive findings or orders cannot be upheld on the ground

that they are res-judicata. Nor, in general, can the consequence of the strict application

of ultra vires doctrine be avoided by invoking the law of estoppel.

9. From the earliest times the courts of common law in England had asserted a right

to determine the proper jurisdiction of courts administering other systems of law and to

contain them within that jurisdiction by writs of prohibition. But it was not until the

seventeenth century that the modern conception of the judicial review had emerged. The

distinction between excess of jurisdiction and erroneous exercise of jurisdiction came to

be drawn in cases where an inferior statutory tribunal was directly attacked by means of

certiorari.

10. The theory of jurisdiction may now be stated as follows: jurisdiction means

authority to decide. Whenever a judicial tribunal is empowered or required to inquire into

a question of law or fact for the purpose of giving a decision thereon, its findings on it

cannot be impeached collaterally or on an application for certiorari but are binding until

reversed on appeal.
 1. Introduction to Judicial Review of Administrative
Action
Need for the judicial control of the Administrative process

JUDICIAL REVIEW
 Judicial review is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject
to review (and possible invalidation) by the judiciary. Specific courts with judicial review
power must annul the acts of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher
authority (such as the terms of a written constitution).

 Principle of law are applicable to judicial review in respect of Executive acts.

 It has developed by the courts, which have the power of final interpretation of statutory
laws, and a concomitant power to provide judge-made remedies where the statues are
silent.

NEED FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

 The function of judicial review is to act as “a check against excess power in derogation of
private right” yet it cannot supervise all administrative adjudications for it exists to
check, not to supplant them.

 Judicial review has developed principles like the common law itself, gradually from case
to case , due to pressures of particular situations, the lessons from experiences, the
guidance of ideal and general principle, and the influence of legislation

SCOPE

 The scope of judicial review depends upon whether a given function is administrative or
judicial in nature. The administrative finding of facts is not generally reviewed unless it
goes to the very jurisdiction or the findings are manifestly wrong in which case they are
likely to be characterized as flawed in point of law.

RATIONALE

 Through past experiences it has been learned that if the executive is allowed to exercise
its powers unchecked by the judiciary, it may become colored with capriciousness,
political influences and arbitrariness etc. so this makes up the historical rationale for
judicial review
  Whenever dealing with public at large, they are required to act reasonably, impartially,
without any arbitrariness and within the defined sphere of their powers.

2. Practice & Concept of Judicial Review

 Judicial review is a form of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a
decision or action made by a public body. It is a challenge to the way in which a decision
has been made.

 It is Appropriate Where an unlawful decision or action has been taken by a public body
and no alternative remedy is available.

Practice & Concept of Judicial Review

History:

 It started from America back in 18th century on a very famous case of Marbury vs.
Madison

 William Marbury sued for a writ of mandamus, under The Judiciary Act, 1789, to require
Madison to hand over his commission.

Britain:
 In UK "judicial review is the exercise of the court's inherent power at common law to
determine whether action is lawful or not; in a word to uphold the rule of law.“ Said
Lord Simon Brown”

 Judicial review is a High Court procedure for challenging administrative actions.

 Under which; Delegated legislation may also be challenged. It allows individuals,

businesses or groups to challenge in court the lawfulness of decisions taken by
Ministers, Government Departments and other public bodies. These bodies include local
authorities, the immigration authorities, and regulatory bodies and some tribunals.

 The court is now referred to as the Administrative Court. Prior to 2000, judicial review
cases were heard by High Court judges sitting in the Crown Office List.

 The Administrative Court is part of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court. In
strict terms the Administrative Court refers to the list of judges authorised by the Lord
Chief Justice to sit on Administrative law cases.

 However No Statutory or enacted law, made by the way of Supreme Legislation, can be
challenged in any court of law in UK, under the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty.
France
 The concept of review of order of administrative bodies by the ordinary courts is foreign
to civil law countries like France and West Germany.

• Court structure in France has been strictly separated into distinct jurisdictions: judicial
courts and administrative courts. These two exercise their jurisdictions independent of
each other and orders passed by courts of one side cannot be reviewed by other side.

• A Court of Conflicts has been constituted, consisting of judges of both jurisdictions,

which settles conflicts between judicial and administrative courts.

Judicial Review In India:

 The Concept of judicial review in India is quite strong as compared to Pakistan because
of the reason that the Indian law is much more developed as compared to Pakistan and
their courts can even review the legislative procedures made by their parliament

 Under article 226 of Indian constitution the high court has the power of judicial review,
meaning there by if some administrative authority or department, in exercise of
government powers, passes any legal order or takes some action which is contrary to
law, the high court can set a sight such illegal orders and actions of administrative
authority and give an appropriate direction in this half.

Constituency of public law review in Pakistan

 In Pakistan the development of judicial review of administrative action has followed that
of Britain and USA. There has been no marked opposition to the administrative process
but it has been accepted as imminent of national planning and growth of the welfare
state.

 under the provisions of articles 184(3) and 199 of Pakistan 1973 constitution the
Supreme Court and the high court have the power to issue writs in the nature of habeas
corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto .

Writs Under Article 184(3) and 199 of Pakistan Constitution 1973

 Writ habeas corpus: it is an order of Superior courts to produce the body to public
authority .any one can apply for habeas corpus.

 Writ of mandamus: it is an order by Superior courts asking to public authority to

perform a duty imposed upon him it by constitution or by any other law

 Writ of certiorari: it is a judicial order by Superior courts requiring of any action to be

certified by the court and dealt with according to law. Here only aggrieved person can
file a suit.
  Writ of prohibition: it is an order forbids an agency to continue proceedings in
contravention of law of the land. only aggrieved party can apply

 Writ of quo warranto: it is an order to public officer requiring his answer that under
what authority he is holding that office.

Judicial Review by Supreme Court of Pakistan

 Under Article 184 (3 A) of the constitution of Islamic republic of Pakistan Supreme Court
of Pakistan can take Sou Moto action on any administrative action against any
administrative authority when the issue is of either Public Importance or is of
Fundamental Rights

 Supreme Court also takes action on Legislative Procedures but is happens very rare,
and happens only when the public mode is against the Decision made by Govt and all
this takes place because of Judicial Activism Movement/ Lawyers Movement

Cases Registered following judicial review:

 Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry v/s president of Pakistan(PLD
2010 SC 61)

 Bank of punjab v/s haris steel industries(PLD 2010 SC 1109)

 Mian Muhammad Nawaz Shareef v/s president of Pakistan (PLD 1993 SC 473)

3. The Jurisdictional Principle or Doctrine of Ultra Vires

Doctrine of ultra vires
Hazrat Umer (R.A) Exhorted that “ the government is entrusted to me, and I am accountable
for it before the people”

 The doctrine of ultra vires is the basic doctrine in administrative law which means
“Beyond the power”.

 An action of the authority is intra vires when it falls within the limits of the power
conferred on it but ultra vires if it goes outside this limit.

Difference between Judicial review and judicial interpretation

 Judicial review is different from judicial interpretation of the statute. In judicial
interpretation of the laws, the courts endeavor to find their meaning as understood by
 the lawmakers. They do not declare it unconstitutional and therefore null and void. They
do not question the power of the legislature to make law.

 In judicial review, the courts interpret the constitution in such a manner as to see
whether or not the act in question has violated its provision. if so, they declare it
unconstitutional and therefore null and void because it was ultra vires of the lawmaker
concerned that is they have exceed the powers conferred upon them by the
constitution

Scope
 “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. great men are almost
always bad men”(Lord acton)

 The doctrine of ultra vires stands for the act, which are for any reason in excess of
power, are often describe as outside jurisdiction.

 Doctrine of ultra vires is in fact a scale for the measurement of delegated legislation. Its
validity and the proper observance of procedure created by the said legislation..

Grounds of judicial review

1. Unreasonableness

2. Improper motives/ malafide

3. Irrelevant considerations

4. Acting under dictation

5. Abduction of authority or discretion

6. Lack of jurisdiction

7.Procedural defects

Unreasonableness:
 the doctrine of unreasonableness has been adopted in the rule that powers, particularly
discretionary ones have to exercise judiciously and not arbitrarily. arbitrary exercise of
jurisdiction has been called abuse of jurisdiction.

Case:
 government of Pakistan V/s dada Ammer Haider khan (PLD 1987 SC 504),

 The respondent was refused a passport, and the reasons given by the government
before the high court were that the respondent was an old political worker having
 “communist thoughts”. In upholding the decision of the high court , the supreme court
observed:

 “we don’t think that this reason was a reasonable ground on which a citizen’s liberty to
travel abroad could be curtailed ”

Improper motive or malafide:

 The court can also inquire into the motives of the authorities Passing orders when such
orders are under review ,a malafide order means that which is passed not for the
purpose contemplated by the enactment but for some other collateral or ulterior
motives.

Irrelevant consideration:
 It is an established principles that in exercising discretion the authorities must have
regard to all relevant consideration and disregard all irrelevant consideration.

Acting under dictation:

 The person so authorized must not act under dictation. Discretionary power must be
exercised only by the person authorized by the statue . even where the government
delegates certain authority to one of its officer which officer is required to act on his
own satisfaction and not under dictation from his delegated.

Abduction of authority or discretion:

 Person invested with a discretion must exercise it properly and are not allowed to
surrender their power to any other authority.

Lack of jurisdiction:
 It is a basic principle of administrative law that no body can act beyond its power. This
lies at the basis of judicial review on the ground of lack of jurisdiction . no authority can
exceed the power given to it and any action taken by it in excess of its power is invalid.

Procedural defects:
 If an authority fails to observe a procedure requirement which is considered to be
mandatory, then its decision is liable to be null and void on the ground of ultra vires.
 4. REVIEW OF FINDGS OF LAW & FINDINGS OF FACTS

SCOPE
 The distinction between questions of law and questions of fact is important in the
proceedings of judicial review but also involving the rights of appeal to the high court.

 Courts has to decide on their on keeping in view the facts and law.

 The most important limitation on the judicial review of administrative tribunals and
Quasi-judicial bodies is that the courts do not interfere with an administrative body’s
determination of facts except when its conclusion is not supported by any evidence at
all.

 The erroneous refusal or admission of evidence by a tribunal obliged to observe the

rules of evidence is an error of law.

FINDINGS OF FACT
it is an assertion that a phenomenon exists, has existed or will exist, independently, of any
assertions to its legal effect.

 The scope of judicial review of administrative action is dominated by the distinction

between fact and law.

 The separation of function is founded on the principle that the administrative tribunals
would find the facts and the courts would not interfere unless the absence of evidence
of the finding required them to intervene.

 The courts also refused to correct orders in the application of documentary evidence of
affidavits, or errors in drawing inferences or omissions to draw inferences

 The courts have refused to review findings of facts for insufficiency of evidence.

SO TO WHAT EXTENT DO THE COURTS HAVE JURIDICTION TO REVIEW QUESTIONS OF FACTS

AND QUESTIONS OF LAW?????

 In Pakistan, the power of judicial review available to high courts does not extend to
investigation into questions of fact or appraisal of evidence falling within the authority
of administrative tribunals or executive functionaries where findings of fact is based on
evidence.
BRITISH COURTS
 The British courts have refused to review decisions of inferior tribunals if based on
evidence.

 They extricated themselves from such tendency by establishing their authority to review
facts of they are collateral and is known as JURISDICYTIONAL FACTS in American Law
and Collateral Facts in English Law.

 This doctrine is based on the general rule that no court or tribunal of limited jurisdiction
can give itself jurisdiction by a wrong decision on a point collateral to the merits of the
case upon which the limits to its jurisdiction depends.

 The courts of Pakistan and India have the doctrine of jurisdictional facts, in review of
facts.

 A notice under Section 248 of the Civil Procedure Code was necessary in order for the
court to give jurisdiction to sell property by way of execution as against the legal
representative of a deceased judgment debtor, then court acquires jurisdiction to sell
the property in question.

 The Indian Supreme court held that the industrial tribunal under the Industrial Disputes
Act,1947,is dependent upon the dispute as defined in the act

 The relationships of Landlord and tenants is denied and an objection is taken to the
jurisdiction of the rent controller, such objection must be treated as preliminary
objection and must be resolved by taking preliminary action

 A purely administrative officer who is empowered to pass an order if certain

circumstances exist has no jurisdiction to determine those circumstances is n essential
condition of the validity of his order.

 An administrative officer

REVIEW OF OTHER FACTS

 The review of facts other than jurisdictional fact has not been acceptable by the courts
of Pakistan, India and Britain. They refused to exercise judicial control where it involves
reviewing sufficiency of evidence.

 The courts have refused to review decisions of ‘appreciation’ of documentary evidence

and conflicting evidence that was available before the inferior courts and tribunals.
 5. Principle Of Natural justice

 The rules of natural justice … require that persons be afforded a fair and unbiased
hearing before decisions are taken which affect them.

Scope
 The principles of Natural Justice provide the standards of administrative Justice that
how far is it right for the courts of law to try to impart their own standards of Justice to
the administration

 The English judges base the principles of Natural justice on moral and ethical
foundations as embodied in the justice of common law, which they assert ‘will supply
the omission of the legislature

 The law in Pakistan is that principles of natural justice are applicable to proceedings of
all authorities, judicial or administrative unless the application is excluded by the law
under which the authority acts

 A man cannot be a judge in his own case; that no party is to be condemned unheard;
and that a party is considered to know the precise case he is to meet; and that a party is
entitled to know why a matter has been decided against him

 Right to Fair Trial: For the determination of the civil rights and obligations or any
criminal charge against a person shall be entitled to a fair trial and due process, e.g.
Slavery, forced labor etc., prohibited A newly inserted Fundamental Right, Article 10-A,
Chapter-I of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by virtue of (Eighteen
Amendment) Act, 2010.

Biasness
 A judge should not adjudicate upon a cause in which he is interested

 A biased judge is disqualified from adjudicating upon the subject matter of the case
litigated before him

 In the case of official Bias, there may be no personal Ill Will, but there may be evidence
of an abnormal desire to uphold a particular departmental policy which would prevent
an impartial adjudication of the dispute.

 Thus in Indo-Pakistan law, although in earlier decisions the courts used to apply the rule
against bias to the adjudication by administrative bodies which were entrusted with the
formulation of the policies, they seem to be slowly coming to the position that prevails
 in Anglo-American law, i.e. that bias in the sense of preconceived view on issues of
policy is no ground for disqualification

Personal Bias
 It’s about judge’s favoritism towards one party or another or due to personal friendship,
family relationship, or employer or employee relationship

 Even an appearance of bias is likely to disqualify a judge.

 In English law, ‘personal Bias’ has been established from a variety of circumstances, e.g.

a) Personal relationship where the son was the chairman of a rent tribunal while the father
was the tenant of the same landlord

 In Pakistan and India, the courts have applied the rule against bias strictly wherever
personal prejudice or ill-will could be proved from the proceedings or from the conduct
of the parties

Pecuniary interest
 In English law pecuniary interest, however slight, disqualifies an adjudicator

 The rule of pecuniary bias disqualifying a judge also operates in the Indo-Pakistan sub-
Continent

 Where an accused was tried and convicted by the presidency Magistrate of criminal
branch of trust as a servant in respect of certain goods belongings to the company and
the magistrate was shareholder in the company which prosecuted the accused

 It was held that the Magistrate was disqualified from trying the case and conviction was
set aside

Rule against Bias

1- Acquiescence and waiver

 it has been held that a party may be deemed to have waived his objection to the
exercise of jurisdiction on the grounds of Bias if he has not taken this objection at the
earliest opportunity after having acquired clear and full knowledge as to the facts
constituting such disqualifications

Patent and latent want of Jurisdiction

 The defect of bias, it is obvious, does not belong to the category of patent want of
jurisdiction, It is presumably the latent want of jurisdiction
  The defect of bias does not often appear on the face of proceedings; it depends in most
cases on the personal knowledge of the facts constituting bias, then the same would
give rise to his right to object to jurisdiction of the tribunal before the participants in the
proceedings.

 The court assumes that party has waived or abandoned its right to object

 Principle of Audi Alteram partum

(natural justice)

 It means hearing of both sides and applied in all variety of circumstances regarded as
foundation of English justice.

 The right of hearing was insisted upon in case involving of removal of incumbent from
property purchased within definite period or removal of person from his position for his
neglect to sit in the court are related to the rule of Principle of Audi Alteram partum.

It was considered in three matters

 Nature of property

 The office held

 The status enjoyed or services performed by the complainant

In Pakistan the application of this principle

closely followed by the precedent in English law.

 Given opportunity to affect party

 Some kind of inquiry giving a hearing and to collect evidence

 Considering all fact and circumstance before giving a decision

The rule is not confined to the proceeding before courts but include all administrative
proceedings which affects person or property are other right of party concerned in the dispute.

This law in India restricted the operation of the principle to judicial only.

 Breach of Audi Alteram Partum (jurisdictional defect) in case of right of hearing the
breach of the rule can be treated as want or access of jurisdiction which random a
proceeding void.

 Breach of this rule does not constitute jurisdictional defect.

  Exception to this principle

Cannot be invoked to be in sphere of policy and private law of principle.

 In Pakistan it is not for the court to examine the soundness of Policy behind the
legislation, the court only see that powers given to the turbunial are exercised in a
lawful manner

Private law principle :

 A master is entitled to terminate the services of servant without notice

Reasonable opportunity of defense

 The party is given a reasonable opportunity of producing for his defense

 In principle of natural justice a party is entitled to know why matter was decided against
him

 In Pakistan India speaking orders by the court to give the reasoned decision

6. REMEDIES
Remedies provided for redressing the wrong done to citizens by the actions of Administrators
can be divided into two categories:

 Private Law Remedies

 Public Law Remedies

PRIVATE LAW REMEDIES

Private law review refers to the ordinary courts of the land, exercised in accordance with the
ordinary law to control administrative authorities and their actions

Private Law review can be exercised through following modes:

 Action for Damages

 Injunctions

 Declarations

ACTION FOR DAMAGES

 An action for damages used to lie against the local authorities or public corporations.
  A corporation which has the same liability as any individual has, in all civil matters, can
be liable for the acts of his servant acting within the scope of his employment.

INJUNCTIONS
 Injunction is a judicial process by which one who has invaded or is threatening to invade
the rights, legal or equitable of another, is restrained from continuing or commencing
such wrongful act.

DECLARATIONS
 A declaratory action signifies a judicial remedy, which conclusively determines the rights
of the parties.

 Any person entitled to legal character may institute a suit against any person denying
such character, and the court may in its discretion make there a declaration that he is so
entitled.

PUBLIC LAW REMEDIES

 An important aspect of Public Law review is not only enforcement of private right but to
keep the administrative and quasi-administrative machinery within proper control.

 Under the provision of article 184 (3) and 199 of Pakistan constitution. The Supreme
Court and High Court have power to issue writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, certiorari, prohibition and quo warrants.

LIMITS ON PUBLIC LAW REVIEW

Principles or the limits on Public Law review, the presence of which is quite mandatory for the
issuing of writs are mentioned

 Laches or unreasonable delay

 Alternative remedy

 Res Judicata
 7. Contribution of Judicial Review to the Development
of Administrative Law
Judicial Control of Administration
as an action of
Development of Administrative Law
 Keep the powers of Government within legal bounds, to secure individual’s rights &
interest against Mighty Powers of Administration;

 can offer adequate remedies when the rights are infringed by the Administration

 To segregate the legal position of Administration and the Individual to avoid controversy

 Courts are there to ensure application of the Rule of Law, to ensure lawful application of
the authorized powers

 Compel Public Authorities to perform their duties & exercise their Administrative
Authorities in accordance with the law and advise remedies for addressing issues in case
of maladministration;

 The Essence of Administrative Law lies in judge-made doctrine, to ensure legal

standards of conduct of Public Authorities.

 Administrative Justice is meant to earn the trust of the public that given powers shall be
exercised conformable to its ideas of fair dealing and good administration for citizens.

Conclusion
 Judicial Control of Administrative action is the most important Organ of Administrative
Law

 Courts are final arbiters for exercising the authority on administrative actions, to ensure
its accordance with the law and free from abuses like caprice, perversity, violation of
principals of Natural Justice….

 Superiors Courts in Pakistan, India, Britain deploy a vast body of Principals & procedures
for guidance of Administration & administrators, to ensure legal compliances.

 Administrative Law is the CROSSROADS of the principal organs of Government,

Legislature, Executive & Judiciary
 In order to understand the concept of judicial review of the administrative actions and
for determination of its true scope and extent, the concept of jurisdiction, in its various
aspects, must be clearly understood. This is because the courts, exercising the power of
judicial review, are not only judges of the other statutory authorities jurisdiction, but as
an independent branch of the Government, namely, the Judiciary, are also the judges of
their own jurisdiction.

____________________________________________